I think the discussion about this has, to some extent, got it the wrong way
round. Most people are running on the idea that licensure is about
protecting consumers, and that this was the original and continuing
motivation for registration of lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers,
etc.
This is not quite right. Well, its not right at all, really. The drive for
licensure in the professions very rarely comes from either (a) consumers or
(b) the government. It comes from the professionals themselves. The
motivation is NOT to protect the public, but to protect the profession! In
all three cases of the law, medicine and architecture the professional
bodies pushed for state regulation, and often had to lobby for decades to
achieve it.
There were no outraged consumer groups, no letters to state legislatures or
Parliament. The professionals, faced with state regulation did NOT run
around screaming "Get out of our market, we know what to do!" They ran
screaming "License us! License us!" After all, it was the US state
governmnets which DEregulated law and medicine early in the nineteenth
century, and until quite late last century it was entirely possible in many
places to practice either without a degree or training of any kind, let
alone a license.
To take another example: in the United Kingdom a government committee has
recently (1992, I think) recommended the repeal of the Architects' Act
which establishes licensure. Are the architects crying "What a relief! Free
at last!". Au contraire! They are frothing at the mouth to prevent this
happening.
I am not convinced myself that licensure is required for public safety,
etc. Norway does not protect the title of architect, India does, but I'll
lay London to a brick that Norwegians get better buildings!
The point is, I suppose, that no capitalist wants a free market. Every
capitalist wants a monopoly market. Take a look at the so-called looming
trade-war betwen Japan and the USA. The usual strategy taken to avoid what
would be an obvious contradoction between saying you want a free market and
lobbying the govt to do everything in its power to give you a protected one
is usually to claim that the OTHER side is not playing fair, so help is
needed, etc, etc. All rather similar to listening to professional wrestlers
after a match.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
round. Most people are running on the idea that licensure is about
protecting consumers, and that this was the original and continuing
motivation for registration of lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers,
etc.
This is not quite right. Well, its not right at all, really. The drive for
licensure in the professions very rarely comes from either (a) consumers or
(b) the government. It comes from the professionals themselves. The
motivation is NOT to protect the public, but to protect the profession! In
all three cases of the law, medicine and architecture the professional
bodies pushed for state regulation, and often had to lobby for decades to
achieve it.
There were no outraged consumer groups, no letters to state legislatures or
Parliament. The professionals, faced with state regulation did NOT run
around screaming "Get out of our market, we know what to do!" They ran
screaming "License us! License us!" After all, it was the US state
governmnets which DEregulated law and medicine early in the nineteenth
century, and until quite late last century it was entirely possible in many
places to practice either without a degree or training of any kind, let
alone a license.
To take another example: in the United Kingdom a government committee has
recently (1992, I think) recommended the repeal of the Architects' Act
which establishes licensure. Are the architects crying "What a relief! Free
at last!". Au contraire! They are frothing at the mouth to prevent this
happening.
I am not convinced myself that licensure is required for public safety,
etc. Norway does not protect the title of architect, India does, but I'll
lay London to a brick that Norwegians get better buildings!
The point is, I suppose, that no capitalist wants a free market. Every
capitalist wants a monopoly market. Take a look at the so-called looming
trade-war betwen Japan and the USA. The usual strategy taken to avoid what
would be an obvious contradoction between saying you want a free market and
lobbying the govt to do everything in its power to give you a protected one
is usually to claim that the OTHER side is not playing fair, so help is
needed, etc, etc. All rather similar to listening to professional wrestlers
after a match.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA